30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No.380 of 2023 Smt Chanambam (O) Yumnam (N) Mayol Leima … Petitioner -Versus- State of Manipur & 3 Ors … Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA 18.2.2025 Heard Mr.Th.Kunjaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Niranjan, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr.L.Gunindro, learned counsel for respondent No.4, office of the Principal Accountant General, Manipur. The petitioner, who is a post retiral spouse of the deceased government servant approached this Court for directing the respondents to convert the family pension to the petitioner under the scheme of Post Retireral Spouse and to set aside the impugned letter dated 16.1.2023 issued by the Sr. Accounts Officer/Pension, office of the Principal Accountant General, Manipur. By the impugned letter it is held that under Rule 54 sub Rule 16 sub-clause (i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the Post Retiral Spouse is not entitled for family pension. Mr.Kunjaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to judgment and decree dated 22.4.2022 issued by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Mat (Decl) Suit No.4 of 2021, wherein the petitioner has been declared as legally married wife of the deceased Government servant. Mr.Kunjaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwanti:Sharada Swamy Vs Union of India reported in 1989 AIR (SC) 2088 wherein it was held that a post retiral spouse is also entitled to pensionary benefit under Rule 54 of the Pension Rules and the impugned letter dated 16.1.2023 issued by the Office of the Principal Accountant General, is against the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also pointed out that the impugned letter dated 16.1.2023 was issued under the repealed provision and deserves to be set aside. Mr.S.Niranjan, learned Government Advocate and Mr.L.Gunindro, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 fairly agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 16.1.2023 is treated as null as it is against the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to process the recommendation of the Administrative Department, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Furnish a copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties. JUDGE Priyojit RAJKUMA R PRIYOJIT SINGH Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT SINGH Date: 2025.02.20 11:08:41 +05'30'